Effective and less toxic reversal of low-molecular weight heparin anticoagulation by a designer variant of protamine

What's fishy about protamine? Clinical use, adverse reactions, and potential alternatives

Protamine, a highly basic protein isolated from salmon sperm, is the only clinically available agent to reverse the anticoagulation of unfractionated heparin. Following intravenous administration, protamine binds to heparin in a nonspecific electrostatic interaction to reverse its anticoagulant effects. In clinical use, protamine is routinely administered to reverse high-dose heparin anticoagulation in cardiovascular procedures, including cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Despite the lack of supportive evidence regarding protamine's effectiveness to reverse low-molecular-weight heparin, it is recommended in guidelines with low-quality evidence. Different dosing strategies have been reported for reversing heparin in cardiac surgical patients based on empiric dosing, pharmacokinetics, or point-of-care measurements of heparin levels. Protamine administration is associated with a spectrum of adverse reactions that range from vasodilation to life-threatening cardiopulmonary dysfunction and shock. The life-threatening responses appear to be hypersensitivity reactions due to immunoglobulin E and/or immunoglobulin G antibodies. However, protamine and heparin-protamine complexes can activate complement inflammatory pathways and inhibit other coagulation factors. Although alternative agents for reversing heparin are not currently available for clinical use, additional research continues evaluating novel therapeutic approaches.

Parenteral anticoagulants: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

This article describes the pharmacology of approved parenteral anticoagulants. These include the indirect anticoagulants, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), fondaparinux, and danaparoid, as well as the direct thrombin inhibitors hirudin, bivalirudin, and argatroban. UFH is a heterogeneous mixture of glycosaminoglycans that bind to antithrombin via a unique pentasaccharide sequence and catalyze the inactivation of thrombin, factor Xa, and other clotting enzymes. Heparin also binds to cells and plasma proteins other than antithrombin causing unpredictable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and triggering nonhemorrhagic side effects, such as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and osteoporosis. LMWHs have greater inhibitory activity against factor Xa than thrombin and exhibit less binding to cells and plasma proteins than heparin. Consequently, LMWH preparations have more predictable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, have a longer half-life than heparin, and are associated with a lower risk of nonhemorrhagic side effects. LMWHs can be administered once daily or bid by subcutaneous injection, without coagulation monitoring. Based on their greater convenience, LMWHs have replaced UFH for many clinical indications. Fondaparinux, a synthetic pentasaccharide, catalyzes the inhibition of factor Xa, but not thrombin, in an antithrombin-dependent fashion. Fondaparinux binds only to antithrombin. Therefore, fondaparinux-associated HIT or osteoporosis is unlikely to occur. Fondaparinux exhibits complete bioavailability when administered subcutaneously, has a longer half-life than LMWHs, and is given once daily by subcutaneous injection in fixed doses, without coagulation monitoring. Three additional parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors and danaparoid are approved as alternatives to heparin in patients with HIT.

Heparin and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin

This article about unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is part of the Seventh American College of Chest Physicians Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence-Based Guidelines. UFH is a heterogeneous mixture of glycosaminoglycans that bind to antithrombin via a pentasaccharide, catalyzing the inactivation of thrombin and other clotting factors. UFH also binds endothelial cells, platelet factor 4, and platelets, leading to rather unpredictable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Variability in activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) reagents necessitates site-specific validation of the aPTT therapeutic range in order to properly monitor UFH therapy. Lack of validation has been an oversight in many clinical trials comparing UFH to LMWH. In patients with apparent heparin resistance, anti-factor Xa monitoring may be superior to measurement of aPTT. LMWHs lack the nonspecific binding affinities of UFH, and, as a result, LMWH preparations have more predictable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. LMWHs have replaced UFH for most clinical indications for the following reasons: (1) these properties allow LMWHs to be administered subcutaneously, once daily without laboratory monitoring; and (2) the evidence from clinical trials that LMWH is as least as effective as and is safer than UFH. Several clinical issues regarding the use of LMWHs remain unanswered. These relate to the need for monitoring with an anti-factor Xa assay in patients with severe obesity or renal insufficiency. The therapeutic range for anti-factor Xa activity depends on the dosing interval. Anti-factor Xa monitoring is prudent when administering weight-based doses of LMWH to patients who weigh > 150 kg. It has been determined that UFH infusion is preferable to LMWH injection in patients with creatinine clearance of < 25 mL/min, until further data on therapeutic dosing of LMWHs in renal failure have been published. However, when administered in low doses prophylactically, LMWH is safe for therapy in patients with renal failure. Protamine may help to reverse bleeding related to LWMH, although anti-factor Xa activity is not fully normalized by protamine. The synthetic pentasaccharide fondaparinux is a promising new antithrombotic agent for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism.

A novel protamine variant reversal of heparin anticoagulation in human blood in vitro

PURPOSE

Protamine reversal of heparin anticoagulation during cardiovascular surgery may cause severe hypotension and pulmonary hypertension. A novel protamine variant, [+18RGD], has been developed that effectively reverses heparin anticoagulation without toxicity in canine experiments. Heretofore, human studies have not been undertaken. This investigation hypothesized that [+18RGD] would effectively reverse heparin anticoagulation of human blood in vitro.

METHODS

Fifty patients who underwent anticoagulation therapy during vascular surgery had blood sampled at baseline and 30 minutes after receiving heparin (150 IU/kg). Activated clotting times were used to define specific quantities of [+18RGD] or protamine necessary to completely reverse heparin anticoagulation in the blood sample of each patient. These defined amounts of [+18RGD] or protamine were then administered to the heparinized blood samples, and percent reversals of activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin clotting time, and antifactor Xa/IIa levels were determined. In addition, platelet aggregation assays, as well as platelet and white blood cell counts were performed.

RESULTS

[+18RGD] and protamine were equivalent in reversing heparin as assessed by thrombin clotting time, antifactor Xa, antifactor IIa levels, and white blood cell changes. [+18RGD], when compared with protamine, was superior in this regard, as assessed by activated partial thromboplastin time (94.5 +/- 1.0 vs 86.5 +/- 1.3% delta, respectively; p < 0.001) and platelet declines (-3.9 +/- 2.9 vs -12.8 +/- 3.4 per mm3, respectively; p = 0.048). Platelet aggregation was also decreased for [+18RGD] compared with protamine (23.6 +/- 1.5 vs 28.5 +/- 1.9%, respectively; p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

[+18RGD] was as effective as protamine for in vitro reversal of heparin anticoagulation by most coagulation assays, was statistically more effective at reversal than protamine by aPTT assay, and was associated with lesser platelet reductions than protamine. [+18RGD], if less toxic than protamine in human beings, would allow for effective clinical reversal of heparin anticoagulation.

Differential effects of novel protamine variants on myocyte contractile function with left ventricular failure

BACKGROUND

Protamine administration can cause left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, which may have clinical significance in the setting of congestive heart failure (CHF). Protamine variants have recently been constructed with heparin reversal capacity similar to protamine. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential differential effects of these protamine variants on isolated myocyte contractile function in normal myocytes and in myocytes after the development of CHF.

METHODS

Contractile function was measured by means of computer-aided videomicroscopy in myocytes from five normal pigs and five pigs with CHF induced by rapid pacing (240 beats/min for 3 weeks). Myocyte contractility was examined in the presence of 40 micrograms/ml native protamine or one of three protamine variants: (1) reduced charge (+18) and lysine substituted for arginine; (2) lysine-substituted variant with glutamic acid substituted for the initial proline; or (3) arginine-rich peptide with a terminal arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) amino acid sequence.

RESULTS

In the presence of native protamine, myocyte percent shortening fell from baseline in both the normal (2.86 +/- 0.15 versus 4.58 +/- 0.08, p < 0.05) and the CHF groups (1.01 +/- 0.06 versus 2.07 +/- 0.05, p < 0.05). With both of the lysine-substituted protamine variants, percent shortening fell from baseline in the normal group (3.42 +/- 0.20 for arginine and 3.74 +/- 0.20 for glutamic acid versus 4.58 +/- 0.08, p < 0.05), and was unchanged in the CHF group (1.94 +/- 0.13 versus 2.07 +/- 0.05, p = 0.34 for arginine; and 1.96 +/- 0.10 versus 2.07 +/- 0.05, p = 0.31, for glutamic acid). However, with the arginine/RGD variant, percent shortening fell from baseline in both the normal (2.86 +/- 0.23 versus 4.58 +/- 0.08, p < 0.05) and the CHF groups (1.32 +/- 0.10 versus 2.07 +/- 0.05, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Specific changes in the primary and secondary structures of protamine had different effects on myocyte contractile function. Furthermore, the negative effects of lysine-substituted protamine variants on myocyte contractility were less pronounced in both CHF and normal myocytes. Thus protamine variants may be of clinical use, particularly in the setting of preexisting LV dysfunction.